mcp-server-ssh

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sftp_download

Download a file from a remote SSH host to a specified local path using an existing connection. Specify remotePath and localPath to transfer files securely over SFTP.

Instructions

将远程主机上的文件快速下载到宿主机本地指定路径

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "remotePath": "<remotePath>",
      "localPath": "<localPath>"
    },
    "name": "sftp_download"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`localPath`	Yes	保存到宿主机本地的绝对路径
`remotePath`	Yes	待下载的远程主机文件绝对路径
`connectionId`	No	目标连接标识符，缺省时使用当前默认连接

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.5Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether an existing local file is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, whether the transfer is atomic/streamed, what happens on a missing remote file, or what the tool returns — all material for a tool that writes to the local filesystem.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the operation and direction stated first and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is also what leaves the behavioral gaps unaddressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover behavior, yet it omits overwrite semantics, directory creation, error cases and connection prerequisites. For a tool in a 16-sibling SSH/SFTP suite, that is insufficient to call it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so remotePath, localPath and connectionId are already documented (including the default-connection fallback for connectionId). The description adds no format, path-syntax or connection-selection detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (下载/download) and resource (文件/file) with an explicit direction (远程主机 → 宿主机本地路径), which cleanly separates it from the sibling sftp_upload. It does not name any sibling, but the directional wording makes the distinction obvious without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an active connection or ssh_connect having been called), and no mention of alternatives such as sftp_read_file for reading contents versus downloading a whole file. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.